RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Actions from 29 Sept/Next Call 13 October

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Julie.

 

To your first action item, and not to split hairs, I think what I was
looking for from legal was an opinion of their reason (if they have one) as
it pertains to the ICANN organization (such as a liability concern, making
this up) vs. a legal reason (such as the citing of any statue or law).

 

For the second action item, it appears to me from the discussion, and from
these documents, that the overriding intent, including by way of various
examples, was NOT for the DOI to be a required, written document whereas in
comparison, it is clearly the intent of the WT for the SOI be a required,
written document.

 

Ray

 

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:27 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Actions from 29 Sept/Next Call 13 October

 

Dear Ray and Work Team members,

Below are the action items from Wednesday's call.  These also are posted on
the wiki at: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team.
Our next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 13 October at 1700 UTC/0900
PDT/1300 EDT.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks.

Best regards,

Julie

Action Items:

1. Statements of Interests: Suggested language from Legal re: Staff
The Work Team asked for clarification on the legal reason for staff to be
exempted from providing a SOI. Also, the Work Team asked Staff to provide
relevant language concerning staff roles from the WG Guidelines. (DONE: With
Clarification from Wolf-Ulrich) It was suggested that the language
concerning staff roles should be consistent in both the SOI/DOI document and
the WG Guidelines.
Actor: Staff
Due Date: 13 Oct

2. Declarations of Interest: Whether to Provide in Writing
The Work Team asked Staff to review transcripts of previous meetings where
this issue was discussed to determine the origin of the requirement. Work
Team members agreed to revisit the issue of a written requirement for DOIs
after reviewing the information provided by staff, either on the list or at
the next meeting on 13 October. Staff subsequently completed a review and
found that the key discussions were held on 17 and 24 February 2010. See
attached document. Staff also noted that the version of the document
provided for discussion on 17 February does not include either in the
definition or in section 4 Disclosures of Interest a requirement for these
to be provided in writing. See attached document.  However, the draft
produced following the meeting on 24 February 2010 includes a requirement
for written SOIs and DOIs in their definitions. See attached document. It
appears that the changes may have been based on the discussion on the
meeting on the 24th for a need to have written SOIs/DOIs for reference.
Actors: Staff and Work Team members
Due Date: 13 October